Space Invaders

Recently while staying at a hotel, I went looking for a place to read and found two couches in a public area. But I noticed a young couple there having a quiet but intense argument. I tried to find another place but was unsuccessful, so I returned. I took a seat as far away from the couple as I could, buried my face in my newspaper, and ignored the now-whispered discussion. When the couple was finished, they walked by me and the woman hissed, "Thanks for the privacy." Was I in the wrong?
D.B. in Cambridge

No. Mr. and Ms. Public Display of Antagonism should have taken their argument elsewhere or accepted that it might be listened in on. People who live in glass houses shouldn't be angry if the neighbors gawk at them. But shoulds and shouldn'ts don't go very far with upset squabblers, so no matter how reasonable your behavior was, you might have been the target of their wrath.

Privacy has two forms: real privacy, in which no one can hear or see what Person X is saying or doing, and fake privacy, in which everyone pretends that they can't hear or see what Person X is saying or doing. Real privacy is what everyone wants, but fake privacy is often the best we can get (particularly those of us who live in cities or work in cubicles). However, for fake privacy to work, no one can acknowledge that there is a need for privacy at all. This requires a certain amount of disciplined psychological denial on all sides.

The only way to have given the PDAs real privacy would have been to remove yourself from the lobby, which hardly seems fair to unobtrusive little newspaper-reading you. If you'd marched over to that second couch with nary a glance at the PDAs and popped open your newspaper with an expression of intense interest in its contents, then the fake privacy could have been maintained. (Assuming the couple was willing to do their part by pretending that they didn't see you, either.) But by noticing their argument in the first place, you tipped your hand and made it difficult to then give them fake privacy. Your best option at that point, no privacy of any sort being possible, would have been to acknowledge the couple briefly and attend to your paper.

My mother-in-law gave my husband and me three religious self-help books: Making Peace With Motherhood . . . And Creating a Better You, Living Well on One Income in a Two-Income World, and Improving Communication in Your Marriage. My husband sent the books back to his mother and then called, saying we didn't find the books useful and suggesting she might try to get her money back. We feel that he might have broken some rules of etiquette but that perhaps we will end her practice of giving us self-help books on topics that do not interest us. Was his approach appropriate?
M.S. in Mansfield

From the tone of your question, I'm guessing that your mother-in-law hasn't merely misjudged your interests but that she disapproves of your lifestyle. Maybe you're not religious, don't have children, or have both children and careers. And maybe you and your husband choose to improve your marriage not by conversation but by knowing when to shut up already (an even rarer skill). If the books were obviously meant as a veiled criticism, then I think your husband handled the situation admirably. He was honest and straightforward and didn't pick a fight ("Exactly what are you trying to tell us, Mom?"). If he had, in return, sent her copies of Toxic Parents: Overcoming Their Hurtful Legacy and Reclaiming Your Life and Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You, now that would have been mean.

My brother's wedding coincides with our parents' 45th anniversary. It may be their last, as Mom has terminal cancer. My sister and I were hoping to have a brunch in my parents' honor the day after the wedding. Many of their friends are flying in for the wedding, and it's unlikely they'll visit again for an anniversary celebration. However, my brother and his fiancee are noticeably cool to the idea, though the brunch wouldn't conflict with any other post-wedding festivities. We suspect they feel this event would take the focus away from them. Is the brunch idea in poor taste?
C.T. in Millis

The brunch idea is wonderful! Of course you should do it. One marriage beginning while another celebrates its final years - I think it's beautiful and sad at the same time. I hope your brother and future sister- in-law eventually warm to the idea. It would be appallingly selfish to want to be the exclusive focus of attention, given the situation. Don't be too quick to impute bad intentions to them, however. Perhaps the coolness you perceive isn't an actual dislike of the brunch idea but simply the result of Event Planning Overload - they may be so up to their ears in wedding details that they simply haven't the brain space to accommodate any other thoughts.

My Word!

Giving all your attention to an iPod or cellphone and ignoring people around you is rude, and it's also dangerous. People need to be aware of their environment. Mentally cocooning into music or a conversation merely impolite in public places that you know are safe but can make you an easy target in more dangerous territory.

Miss Conduct is Robin Abrahams, a Cambridge-based writer with a PhD in psychology.